[OPSAWG] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11
Reviewer: Wesley Eddy Review result: Ready This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Thank you for responding to my prior review comments; the latest copy looks fine to me. ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
[OPSAWG] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05
Reviewer: Wesley Eddy Review result: Ready with Issues Comments: - The document is well-written and easy to read. - Section 6 is really nice and helpful! Issues: - The way an implementation understands the TCP ExIDs may benefit from slightly more explanation: -- In 4.2 and 4.3, is the idea that the implementation is just sampling the 16 or 32 bits following the experimental option kind being indicated, and assuming those 2 or 4 bytes to be ExIDs? From Section 6.2, I got the sense that the implementation is aware of particular ExID values specifically, to know if they should be reported as 2 or 4 byte values. -- Will any values present be reported, or only those which show up in the IANA registry? I assume any values will be reported, even if they are not registered ExIDs, since the registry changes over time, and implementations probably don't grab periodic updates of it. Questions: - This may be alright, but it seemed to me like for interoperability there should be some way to indicate what an implementation of this IE is doing with regard to this text in Section 3.1 (where maybe "may" should be "MAY"?): Several extension header chains may be observed in a Flow. These extension headers may be aggregated in one single ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull Information Element or be exported in separate ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IEs, one for each extension header chain. - In Section 3.3, it seems backwards to me that this Limit IE being True means that no limitation was applied, whereas False means that it was limited. If the WG and implementers are okay with this, I'm not questioning it, but it seems odd, so I just wanted to make sure this was the intention. Nits: - The first paragraph in section 1 should probably mention the specific RFC(s) for the specified IEs with the noted problems, since it sounds from the beginning paragraphs of section 3 and 4 like some of those are already being addressed by the separate ipfix-fixes document. - Section 1.1, "do no correspond" -> "do not correspond" ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
[OPSAWG] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-09
Reviewer: Wesley Eddy Review result: Ready with Issues This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. This document basically looks good to me, though I have a small number of comments: (1) I think this comment impacts only the narrative and not the YANG model itself. The list of possible underlay-transport values seems to be a mixture of expected types of encapsulations, but then a couple of things at the end that are signaling and not encapsulations per-se. The last 2 entries in the list on page 6 are what seem out of place to me - RSVP and BGP. I don't think it's quite correct to refer to these two as the underlay-transport. (2) This is a YANG model question, that I'm unsure of. I want to make sure that in the match-type when match-flow is used that a combination of L3 and L4 attributes can be used. It appears like either L3 or L4 can be indicated, mutually exclusive, but I don't quite understand how it would then be possible to properly represent the combination of IP, transport protocol, and ports that identify a flow. It seems like a list of criteria from both L3 and L4 components is what's needed to express a flow, rather than a choice of L3 or L4. ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
[OPSAWG] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-06
Reviewer: Wesley Eddy Review result: Almost Ready This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. (1) I noticed in the "qos-classification-policy" there is "l4" support either TCP or UDP. It isn't clear if other transport protocols are purposefully not included. Should this also support SCTP and/or DCCP, or other transport protocol numbers in general? Are the QUIC aspects that might be matched contained within the UDP fields supported? (2) Is the allowable MTU another aspect of VPN services that should be able to be expressed? (3) ICMP isn't mentioned as an identity type, and I wondered if this should be. ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
